SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Microcap & Penny Stocks : MISM: Franchising for the Future (The Future is Now)
MISM 0.4500.0%Jan 21 4:00 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: broke2 who wrote (706)7/25/1998 4:17:00 AM
From: Ned Land  Read Replies (1) of 1072
 
broke2, I know your frustration, and may I suggest the following as points for which to demand questions?


1. The names of the auto company and the investment firms have all been withheld.


Why is this required? If I was going to perpetrate deceit this is exactly what I'd do.

2. The one pretzel company acquisition was completed by an individual that -- it remains unclear -- may have served as buyer and seller in the same transaction.


This could be cleared up in one press release, but the morons who run this company know their standing.

3. The deals were -- and I see this now -- announced ahead of the financing and, despite what Dan Masters is reported to have said about these being "done deals," they really aren't done at all. I think we all can see that now.


If they're done deals Dan, why the delay? Duh!

4. The president of the company blames the stock's performance on "manipulators," announces he's hired private investigators, then nothing is ever heard of it again; meanwhile, the stock has traded it public float several times over!


Was this all a reuse, or is there something to this? If so, what did they come up with?

5. A mysterious "deal" in the entertainment industry is dangled before shareholder and then never heard about again.


Yeah, but boy it had a lot of sizzle didn't it?

6. A lawsuit is allegedly brought against the old directors of the company about the same time as Joe Sing tries to implicate Wilfred Shaw with the company's past failures. This news is then distributed on the internet -- not in anything as official as a press release -- seemingly in an effort to reinforce the "old" management from the "new."


Amazingly, no details about it are forthcomming from the company.

7. Someone "totally independent" from the company, but nevertheless with incredible access and supreme internet effort, passionately refutes even the slightest criticism of the company and reports heresy info not directly attributable to the company, but nevertheless "attributed" to the company or its PR firms.

I accuse him of being a tout for the company; he threatens to sue me; then I say "Go ahead, I dare you!" and he anounces he's going on vacation


Where's Waldo? Who cares? Where's Leroy?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext